Wednesday, December 09, 2009

Mesmerized by Discussion Everything But Mandated Health Insurance

It's not buried in the health care insurance legislation, not at all. The mandate is the foundation of whatever is determined to be the details in Senate and House versions of a bill.

Ed Shultz on the Ed Show on MSNBC railed against the rumors of the Senate doing just this, creating a private-sector option with public oversight, but his guest, Jonathan Alter, was on board with whatever the Senate did and the House did to get the most "historical" effort ever towards the ultimate goal universal health care...

The transcript ends the segment with Crosstalk, but Alter's point is not to be missed.

Alter wants to see any legislation passed, no matter the details, no matter what is in it. "...don't destroy history..."

Senate may drop public optionPRIVATE-SECTOR ALTERNATIVEReid says he is optimistic about bill after deal

...Under the deal, the government plan preferred by liberals would be replaced with a program that would create several national insurance policies administered by private companies but negotiated by the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees health policies for federal workers. If private firms were unable to deliver acceptable national policies, a government plan would be created.

In addition, people as young as 55 would be permitted to buy into Medicare, the popular federal health program for retirees. And private insurance companies would face stringent new regulations, including a requirement that they spend at least 90 cents of every dollar they collect in premiums on medical services for their customers...

Shultz wants the full public or government-run option and nothing less.

We believe all of the hysterics not only on his part but others is just for show.

Think about it. If congress can mandate individuals purchase health care insurance, no matter what the details, when Congress is not empowered anywhere in the Constitution to do this, there is nothing to stop Congress from returning in a few years and creating exactly what Shultz and others want.

Nothing.

Unfortunately, the people truly have been put in a state of confusion when the arguments focus on those everything else but the foundation of the proposal - and a "mandate" on individuals is the foundation of the so-called health care (insurance) reform effort.

What are we seeing unfolding here, Jonathan, tonight? Are we seeing just total compromise and the White House and the Democrats are going to be the political pragmatists here and take whatever they can get?

JONATHAN ALTER, SR. EDITOR, "NEWSWEEK": Yes, that`s about it. But what they can get ain`t bad, Ed. And I think you`re misrepresenting the totality of the bill.

Look, I am strongly for a public option, but it doesn`t look like it is in the cards. That`s the nature of politics. You have to deal with the world as it is, not as we would like it to be.

This is sausage-making time. That`s what they compare passing legislation to. Nowadays, we get a camera right into the sausage factory. We`re seeing it unfold. It has never been a pretty process.

When Social Security went through, the liberals were so angry at Franklin Roosevelt because less than half of senior citizens were going to be eligible for Social Security. They said Roosevelt`s a sellout. How could he do this?

Roosevelt understood that politics is the art of the possible. The same thing is true on this bill, Ed.

It`s a 2,000-page bill. Republicans have been complaining about that. In that 2,000 pages is a tremendous amount of fantastically important stuff -- ending discrimination against sick people, which has Harry Reid quite rightly says, is a civil rights issue of the first order; insuring more than 30 million additional Americans; adding all kind of preventive care.

We don`t have time on this broadcast to list all of the important things that are in this bill.

SCHULTZ: Well, that`s why I...

ALTER: Because you`re making it sound...

SCHULTZ: Now, now, wait a minute now.

ALTER: You`re making it sound like the whole bill is the public option. That`s preposterous, Ed. Preposterous.

SCHULTZ: No, wait a second here. No, this is why I didn`t interrupt you, because I let you go and tell me what`s so good about it.

Just so I`m not misrepresenting the sausage-making here, this is nothing but a handout to the insurance industry...

ALTER: Oh, please. That`s preposterous.

SCHULTZ: No, it is not preposterous. It is not preposterous.

What you`ve got is tax dollars that are going to be subsidizing lower- income people, they`re going to be mandated to go over to the insurance industry and purchase insurance. If there is going to be 40 million new customers, Jonathan, 40 million new customers to the insurance industry, why the heck wouldn`t they take that on?

They love it. It`s new customers.

ALTER: Well, that`s how they got the buy-in from the...

(CROSSTALK)

SCHULTZ: There is -- my friend, there is no mechanism in place...

ALTER: That`s why at a minimum -- and this is what they`re behind closed doors talking about. They`re talking about -- now, I don`t favor a trigger. I`m for a public option. But just to explain what it is...

SCHULTZ: I know what it is and our audience knows what it is. It`s a watered-down -- there is no mechanism in place.

ALTER: Well, we don`t mow what the trigger is yet.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHULTZ: Jonathan, there is no mechanism in place on the table that is going to give private industry any competition to force down rates. That`s the way it is.

Our commitment has been to provide viewers with an effort to find truth on a variety of public policy issues, and relay findings, to expand a base of knowledge for viewer information and opinion-forming, no matter one's political affiliation.

We see danger for us all on three fronts:

An announced potential for a global financial crisis and projected global currency, global government, and new world order.

A coming to fruition plan for some 34 states to propose a uniform amendment or amendments to the U.S. Constitution which may automatically present an Article V Convention.

An organized effort by populists to support state legislatures to call an Article V Convention for any number of reasons.

We continue to work to present the kind of information to convince viewers to be ever vigilant. No matter whom we cite on our pages, when we find groups, organizations, political Parties, or notable individuals in support of any one of the above, we are wary, no matter if we agree on other issues of importance.

We have for instance cited Judge Napolitano's Freedom series on the Constitution broadcast on Fox Nation, yet we remain strongly wary of him due to his stated position to encourage Tea Party participants and others to push state legislatures to adopt a resolution to call for a 2nd Convention.

We cannot stress how important it is for your objection to be heard to your own state's legislature and Governor. According to tracking results from some notables including DeWeese and Gary Kreeps - barring it may be ruled previous resolutions adopted by an individual state and already on the formal-call list are voided due to non-uniformity or outdatedness - there may already be some 31 or 32 potentially valid Convention Calls.

34 state resolutions are the magic number which will initiate, basically automatically, a call for convening an Article V Convention.

This site also notes an essay by Gary Kreep, co-founder of the United States Justice Foundation. He too notes how very close an automatic Constitutional Convention call is given factors that even include some states' attempts to rescind former calls.

We also note an article by Kelleigh Nelson Saving the Republic Part 3 which disputes an automatic call is only some two states away. We also note Nelson's reference to a book we also have in our files which is among the best we've read.

Constitution In Crisis Joan Collins and Ken Hill

We'll list other material relied upon to come to the conclusion that despite how many states in actuality have standing convention calls, action is paramount today to thwart a potential gathering storm for support such as Rand Paul's and Judge Andrew Napalitano's.

Our hope is to be among those who continue to warn it is imperative a 2nd Constitutional Convention never happen. The mechanism for Congress to act on presenting its own Amendment or Amendments to the Constitution is already in place. The normal route has not been used all that much because it is known the Amendment or Amendments which are then ratified by the next step - states ratification process - will stand as an alteration of the U.S. Constitution unless and until a subsequent Congress mounts a similar process to repeal the Amendment.

So many others have long-standing in noting the absolute dangers of an Article V Convention.

Among them:

Phyllis Schlafly

McManus

John Birch Society

World Net Daily

We do not claim support with the named on every issue.

It is crucial we, the people of the United States prevent our representatives from enacting any measures that take away U.S. sovereignty and curb or curtail individual and unalienable rights.

You can help by becoming informed and using the power of the pen to attempt to convince such as Rand Paul and Judge Andrew Napolitano of these noted dangers of an Article V Constitutional Convention.

Climatologist Skeptic James Spann

Incognito for security purposes

My blog was caught twice in a robot spam review and had been offline for several months. Fortunately, Blogger Help Forum exchanges with a real person and top contributor resulted in Net the Truth Online being deemed OK. Should the spam-robots misidentify us again, here's where and what happened. My blog pre=this=mess was going just fine. Then I received notice while away my blog was deleted. Help. http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/blogger/thread?tid=1714c2aa73405a98&hl=en&fid=1714c2aa73405a980004933503778adc